|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 15:33:01 GMT 1
STA, we have spooky action at a distance, yes?
We have quantum objects that are spread out, yes?
We have photons that can be in many places at once, yes?
We have Bell's proof of non-locality, yes?
Is it me or are you a bit in denial here?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 15, 2011 15:42:22 GMT 1
Of course we do, I never said we didn't -- just that the consciousness stuff is crap.
Who do you think it was who kept explaining the meaning of Bells results? Is this really the best you can do, going round the same ole consciousness loop yet again? It was excruiatingly boring the first time, and I doubt that any of the arguments you make will have improved. Why don't you just refer readers to past threads, and leave it at that?
And instead try discussing something new about this particular experiment...................
(Expecting that this is the last thing that wil happen, and we 'll just go round the quantum woo-woo bullshit loop yet again..............).
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 15, 2011 15:52:03 GMT 1
Yes, and STA thinks he's wrong! What does that tell you? I mean, millions have heard of him but only a few people have heard of STA. I never gave my opinion of him, I was just talking about the consciousness crap. If he advocates that, then yes, I do think he is wrong. So what, it's the very disagreeing with authority that elsewhere you castigate us for not doing! Yet know you expect us to kow-tow to media celebrity scientists just because they are on telly? How many people have heard of him doesn't matter. Loads of people have heard of Rooney, but despite his practical skills, he isn't the guy I'd go to if I wanted to know about classical mechanics............ From an interview with Kaku: Which sounds to me like the expected resume of Wigners position, NOT a statement as to what Kaku thinks. Other quotes about consciousness are talking about studying it, what it is, NOT whether it does the magic trick in quantum theory. In fact, in the full interview he sounds more enthusiastic with a THIRD interpretation (despite claims here that there can't be others!): Hence I can't see any actual evidence there that I disagree with him. Evidence anyone? Or should we just agree that disagreeing with Tv celebs is heresy................................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 16:11:34 GMT 1
STA, I am going to put this as plainly as I can.
An infinite chain of observers is unnecessary because what is important is that what observers there are only need to be on the same 'wavelength', as it were, to all participate in reality creation. So, the implication of this is that, yes, reality does split, which means we also split and experience the cat both dead and alive but in different dimensions!! This is why we need a theory of a multiverse (many universes).
Hadn't thought of that had you?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 15, 2011 16:16:00 GMT 1
And abacus now just repeats (in a slightly garbled fashion) what Kaku was talking about, which still isn't the consciousness creates reality crap that he earlier espoused..................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 15, 2011 16:17:48 GMT 1
Ah! now I recognise him! He was one of the physicists on a Horizon programme that we discussed recently Yes, and STA thinks he's wrong! ;D Does she now! ;D Precisely nowt that I do not already know! She is also on record as disagreeing iwth Einstein, Feynman and Tong. Indeed she is not on record as agreeing with anyone! I mean, millions have heard of him but only a few people have heard of STA. Perhaps she is well known in the institution she rails from!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 16:29:52 GMT 1
And abacus now just repeats (in a slightly garbled fashion) what Kaku was talking about, which still isn't the consciousness creates reality crap that he earlier espoused.................. Speaker, listen. It does in the sense that it (consciousness) can be multidimensional, so that reality is consciousness dependent existing within the matrix of all possible quantum outcomes. For example, if I were to go out today and witness an accident in my 'world' then there WAS an accident but in someone else's world who looked, spoke and in every respect behaved like me, no accident occurred, so that in my consciousness reality had one outcome, in my 'twin's' reality another. Clearer now?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 16:35:34 GMT 1
Cased closed I think, naymissus At least she entertains us though.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 16:40:24 GMT 1
Speaker, I would also like to point out that without the existence of 'other worlds' quantum computing would not, in principle, be possible.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 15, 2011 18:35:08 GMT 1
More utter bollocks! The many-worlds interpretation is just ONE possible interpretation of quantum theory. You can't use the existence of quantum theory (which isn't specific to quantum computing, that just uses the properties of quantum objects), to claim that one has one.
WHY do you keep talking such utter and absolute bollocks! Everyone KNOWS you are talking bollocks, because even the quickest google on the subject will clearly show that is the case? So, what cheap trill do you get out of typing contunuous and utter drivel on here, day after day? You must be one SAD bastard, frankly.....................
No experiment in quantum theory performed to date favours one particular interpretation of quntum theory over another. not quantum computers,or the double slit, or Schrodingers cat, or Penrose and his bomb detector. NONE of them, that is the problem! The rest is just personal taste.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 18:38:21 GMT 1
More utter bollocks! The many-worlds interpretation is just ONE possible interpretation of quantum theory. You can't use the existence of quantum theory (which isn't specific to quantum computing, that just uses the properties of quantum objects), to claim that one has one. WHY do you keep talking such utter and absolute bollocks! Everyone KNOWS you are talking bollocks, because even the quickest google on the subject will clearly show that is the case? So, what cheap trill do you get out of typing contunuous and utter drivel on here, day after day? You must be one SAD bastard, frankly..................... No experiment in quantum theory performed to date favours one particular interpretation of quntum theory over another. not quantum computers,or the double slit, or Schrodingers cat, or Penrose and his bomb detector. NONE of them, that is the problem! The rest is just personal taste.
|
|
|
Post by robinpike on Feb 15, 2011 19:44:40 GMT 1
Naymissus (or STA), please can you explain the different aspects of this experiment in a bit more detail. If I understand you correctly, I think you are saying that you can set up the apparatus so that photons continually only ever register in just one of the detectors. One of the full silvered mirrors is then removed, and the photons that happen to go through the remaining path then appear equally at either detector.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 15, 2011 19:52:57 GMT 1
"For the multiverse, which is 'to a first approximation' a very large number of co-existing and slightly interacting spacetimes, includes universes in which the cause doesn't occur and its effect doesn't occur. And although the 'me-copy' in this spacetime could not have done otherwise, there are me-copies in other worlds that actually do otherwise (thus, the common-sense idea that, in choosing one course of action, one refrains from another, is not retained). There is a branching of these me-copies that validates my sense that my future is open, in contrast to spacetime physics. However, the open future of common sense is a myth. As defined by the Darwinist framework, there is no flow of time dividing the actualities of the past from the unactualized potentialities of the future." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_Reality#Time.2C_causation_and_free_willWe happy Jean?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 15, 2011 21:17:37 GMT 1
So, that is just one debatable point about quantum computing and what it MEANs as regards interpretations of quantum theory. Others disagree.
Some people think it doesn't make sense WITHOUT the Many-Worlds hypothesis -- but others disagree. IF it were all clear-cut (as the earlier post suggested), then there wouldn't be anything left to argue about.
So, a quote from an article that makes it a bit clearer:
Note the IF it can be built, and IF we can really do a computation of that size on it.
And why the f**k do you keep referring to me as Jean? Who is this Jean person -- because if an insult, it's not exactly harsh, and if you think I am some other person who you referred to as Jean, you are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 15, 2011 21:24:35 GMT 1
With both arms open, the wavefunction splits (part down each arm), and it can be made a bit like the double slit -- the wave function along one arm interferes with the wave-function along the other, and if you tune it JUST RIGHT, then you can get it so that the amplitude cancels for the path to one detector, and always records photon at the other.
In terms of the double slit, it would be like placing one detector at a minimum of the interference pattern, and the other at a maximum (except of course double slit has MORE than two possibilties, and the possible positions on the final acreen aren't discrete the way they are here!).
Two detectors, and with tuning, all register on one, not the other.
Then you don't remove a mirror (that would after all just be like covering up one slit in the double slit experiment), but instead introduce something else into one of the arms.
|
|